Costs on Conviction

Ted Wood at OCA helps us all make sense of filing fees and court costs; he maintains a body of manuals for clerks on our page of Publications & Forms.  Below I am providing his guide to bills that would raise fees upon conviction of various offenses.
Speeding
A typical speeding conviction in municipal court results in $97.10 in mandatory court costs. In justice court the costs are a dollar more. These court costs do not include fines. (The amount of the fine is up to the judge or jury and can range from $1 to $200.)
Seven bills would serve to increase court costs in speeding cases. If all seven pass, court costs will rise $39 to $137.10 in most justice courts and $32 to $129.10 in most municipal courts:
HB 258 $15 increase in “state traffic fine” (actually a court cost) from $30 to $45.
2/3 of revenue to State’s General Fund; 1/3 to State for trauma and emergency medical services.
HB 331 $1 new cost in municipal courts. Money used for interpreter services, mental health and counseling, ADA modifications, attorney fees for indigent defendants, and judicial education.
HB 395 $5 increase in courthouse security fee (from $4 to $9) and municipal court building security fee ($3 to $8). Money used for court security. HB 777, SB 606, HB 904, & SB 1677 are similar.
HB 1261 $1 increase in municipal court technology fund (from $4 to $5).
HB 2344 $2 new cost in justice courts. money directed to county law enforcement technology fund.
SB 607 $7 new cost in counties with at least 100,000 population (except for Harris County which already can assess this cost). Counties choose whether to impose the cost – most probably will. Money stays with county - no limitations on use.
SB 726 $10 new cost in municipal and justice courts (in cases other than parking and pedestrian cases). Money directed to State “Judicial Access and Improvement Account” to support civil legal services for indigents, indigent defense, state court e-filing, and the state law library.
HB 2174 is an alternative to SB 726 that would direct $5 instead of $10 to the same places.

DWI
A typical Class B Misdemeanor DWI charge will set a person back $397.10 for court costs alone. A fine can be as much as $2,000 on top of the court costs. And a defendant must generally pay a “surcharge” of $1,000 per year for three years to keep his or her driver’s license. (Several bills have been filed that would eliminate the surcharges.)
Two bills would add $50 to DWI court costs. If both bills pass, the court costs for a DWI would increase from $397.10 to $447.10.
HB 395 has already been mentioned in the discussion of speeding cases above. The second bill is:
HB 933 $45 new court cost assessed in DWI and certain other intoxication cases. Money retained by county for certified breath alcohol testing program.

Felony Property Offenses (Arson, Burglary, Robbery, Theft)
Current court costs total $214. Any fine assessed is on top of the court costs.
Three bills would add $45 to the court costs for a new total of $259. The three bills include the previously-mentioned HB 395. The two other bills are:
HB 2065 $15 new court cost on property offenses such as arson, robbery, burglary, and theft. Money would be go to both the State and county for pretrial victim- offender mediation programs.
SB 1616 $25 new court cost on all felonies. Money would go to State’s “biological evidence preservation account.”

Drug Offenses
Court costs for a typical felony drug offense already total $294. This does not include the amount of any fine that may be assessed.
There are three bills that would nearly double the amount of the court costs in this type of case. The new court cost total would be $524, a $230 increase.
HB 395 has been discussed previously as has SB 1616.
SB 994 $200 new court cost on any felony drug offense. Money would be directed to the State for general law enforcement purposes.

Compelling Prostitution
Court costs for this offense are already quite high - $484. If four relevant bills pass, that amount will
climb $140 higher to $624, a 29% increase.
HB 395 and SB 1616 have been mentioned before. The following two bills have not yet been
mentioned:
HB 3746 $10 new court cost on crimes for which the defendant is required to register as a sex offender. Money goes to State for deposit in the “Internet Crimes Against Children Fund” which would be used to support the administration of the activities of three existing Internet Crimes Against Children task forces that are operated by the attorney general and other law enforcement entities. SB 1843 does the same thing.
HB 2014 $100 new court cost on offense of compelling prostitution or trafficking of persons. 50% of money would be retained by county for deposit in a “trafficking of persons and compelling prostitution prevention fund”; 50% of money to State for unspecified purposes]

Performance Guidelines for Non-Capital Criminal Defense Representation

I am happy to serve on the State Bar's Standing Committee on Legal Services to the Poor in Criminal Matters.  That committee has developed and just released a digestible but comprehensive guide to criminal practice in Texas state court from the time of initial representation in trial-level proceedings to the exhaustion of direct review before the Court of Criminal Appeals.  The guidelines seek to encourage defense attorneys to perform to a high standard of representation and to promote professionalism in the representation of indigent defendants. The committee previously published Guidelines and Standards for Texas Capital Counsel and is on the verge of releasing a brochure for distribution statewide, to provide information to defendants considering representing themselves in misdemeanor criminal cases.

Disproportionality in Texas Systems

To start off the blogging in 2011, this chart speaks for itself, but a little more explanation. . . Racial disproportionality, specifically the impact of being African-American, pervades the child welfare, school discipline, juvenile justice, and criminal justice systems. For every bad outcome, from having a child removed from the home to being on death row, African Americans are represented significantly more than they are represented in our state population, and the exact reverse is true for Whites. 
Data Sources:

• State Population: Estimate of the Population by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity for July 1, 2009 for State of Texas, Texas State Data Center, http://txsdc.utsa.edu/tpepp/2009ASREstimates/alldata.pdf.
• FY 2009 CPS Data: Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Data Book 2009, http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/About/Data_Books_and_Annual_Reports/2009/default.asp.
• Students Expelled 2008–2009, Mandatory and Discretionary Expulsions 2007–2008: Texas’ School-to-Prison Pipeline: School Expulsion The Path from Lockout to Dropout, Texas Appleseed, 2010, http://www.texasappleseed.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=380&Itemid.
• Juvenile Justice Data: The State of Juvenile Probation Activity in Texas—Calendar Year 2008, http://www.tjpc.state.tx.us/publications/reports/RPTSTAT2008.pdf, published July 2010.
• Prison/State Jail Population: TDCJ On Hand as of August 31, 2009: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Fiscal Year 2009 Statistical Report, http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/executive/Statistical_Report_FY09.pdf.
• Felony Revocations: FY 2010 Statewide Felony Revocations to Texas Department of Criminal Justice, data received from Texas Department of Criminal Justice, December 27, 2010.
• Drug Arrests: Arrest Data by Race, 2009 Crime in Texas, http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/pages/crimestatistics.htm
• Death Row Offenders: Gender and Racial Statistics of Death Row Offenders, http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/racial.htm, last updated November 22, 2010.

The Courthouse Square

This Christmas, as a well-known map freak, I received a cool book by Frank Jacobs, called Strange Maps. (The link is to his blog, not the book.)  One of the many interesting pages has a map of the various counties in Texas, with the key showing the typology of the courthouse square in each county. Apparently many courthouse squares follow the "Shelbyville" model of how the buildings and roads are arranged around the square, showing the influence of Tennesseans in particular.  I wish I could give you a link to the map, but it is not available online as far as I can tell. It does appear that the map was borrowed from a scholarly text on The Courthouse Square in Texas (Veselka, UT Press), a journal article description of which is excerpted here:

Texas is indeed unique as the only state to retain its public lands on entering the union. This fostered state land policies which encouraged land ownership and the formation of counties and county seats, which once selected led, in turn, to construction of courthouses to house local government. This was facilitated by Anglo-American town plans that were prevalent in Texas and designed specifically to accommodate courthouses. The author examines and analyzes the several types of the courthouse squares derived from Anglo-American planning traditions (Shelbyville, Lancaster, Harrisonburg, and Four-, Two-, and Six-Block Squares), as well as their origins. These square types occur in about three-fourths of Texas' counties. In addition, he examines the remaining one-fourth of Texas town plans that had their origin in Hispanic or other planning traditions (Plaza, Railroad-Influenced, Half- and Quarter-Block, and Irregular Block Squares). These latter types had to be modified to allow location of a courthouse.

In perhaps the most important chapter, Veselka discusses the significant centripetal role of the courthouse square in attracting business activities and public and ceremonial events important to the community. . . .

As I have previously noted, the movement toward e-everything, as described in one of the better COSCA "white papers" (this one from 2005), challenges the centrality of the county courthouse as a place where people still must come together to do their legal business and resolve their disputes.

Technology has also changed the scope of the judiciary’s responsibility to preserve the American tradition of open courts. Now, thanks to the World Wide Web, courts have the opportunity to enhance the public’s ability to meaningfully observe and participate in the judicial process. In this modern age, citizens have the option of going to the courthouse to access court records or documents, or visiting a virtual courthouse where information is available at the click of a mouse. Parties can participate in virtual hearings and meetings, retrieve court records, track the progress of their cases, complete and file complaints and other court documents online, obtain legal information if they are unrepresented, and pay fees and fines via credit card - all without having to leave their homes or businesses.

Equal Justice Under the Law

This plaque hangs outside the courtroom and clerk's office of the Supreme Court of Texas. As I have written about previously, some remarkable work on racial disproportionality in the child welfare part of our justice system is underway in the Texas health and human services world. Since I last wrote, the Health and Human Services Commission has elevated work that was going on specifically in the child welfare area, to embrace the entire enterprise, with the creation of the Center for the Elimination of Disproportionality and Disparities. One of my goals is to bring that work, which has a growing contingent of child welfare judges on board, into the criminal justice conversation. On January 13 the Judicial Advisory Council to TDCJ-Community Justice Assistance Division will hear a presentation by Joyce James, who is the director of the new Center and the driving force behind this courageous work in Texas.

2010 Annual Report

This week our amazing judicial information staff completed and posted online the Annual Report for which the Judicial Council and OCA are probably most known. It is the single best source of information on Texas courts, "IMHO." Just one interesting fact in the report, last year only 3 percent of capital convictions resulted in the death penalty, down from a high of 24 percent in 1992.
Check it out.

Courts Respond to Domestic Violence

Today was the conclusion of the National Leadership Summit on State Court Responses to Domestic Violence, where 38 states sent teams to build collaboration so that courts can do a better job for those they are charged to protect. I feel very good about the plans we have made for Texas, but wanted to share highlights from the address by Professor Sarah Buel, formerly of UT Law School and a hero of the domestic violence movement. She outlined nine simple steps that courts can take to improve conditions for victims of violence:
1. Provide a safe waiting area. One example, Judge Denton in Travis County gave up most of his own office space so a safe area could be created.
2. Provide signage and informational brochures in the waiting area. Examples are available at www.instituteforsafefamilies.org. Safety plan information should be provided with every victim contact; see www.abanet.org/domviol.
3. Train designated DV clerks and court staff.
4. Provide a pre-court briefing for victims and accused batterers so they will know what to expect in the hearing. Travis County uses volunteers for Project Options, and UT has a survivor support network, see www.utexas.edu/ors/dvssn.
5. Seat victim and accused on opposite sides of the courtroom to prevent witness tampering (an area of particular emphasis for Professor Buel).
6. Let the victim leave court 30 minutes before the batterer.
7. Use volunteers for everything - to help the clerks, help probation staff, monitor halls (to watch out for tampering), provide the pre-court briefing, keep brochures supplied, etc.
8. Have court staff participate in a local domestic violence task force.
9. Support a court culture that prioritizes model practices.